WebM license third-party submission

[Russ Nelson]

Chris DiBona writes:
 > > I agree with Chris and Larry -- Google *does* need to be more open
 > > about its workings.  Oh, it's different for Google?  Google is a
 > > profit-making entity?  All the more reason!  Same thing for Larry's
 > > meetings with his clients.  Web streaming, we want web streaming.
 > 
 > The OSI is supposed to be -more- open due to its nature as an organization
 > that purports to pass judgement on openness. That means that secret
 > meetings, lists and communications are much harder to justify.

You forgot the secret handshake.  And "secret meetings" are
implemented via lists and communications, so these fold into just one
objection.

Our meetings are not very secret.  We publish meeting minutes, and if
you want to attend, just ask when they are.  And as Bruce pointed out,
95% of the time, the board agrees with the recommendations of the
committee.  When it doesn't, it sends the question back to the
committee.  And anyone who cares to put in the time (thank y'all!) is
welcome to be a member.

We're not secret because we're trying to keep secrets.  We're secret
because nobody cares to listen.  Security by boredom.  If you show up,
chances are good that you'll be asked to do something.  That's
probably 80% (maybe 90%) of the reason why people don't ask to listen
in to board meetings.

But sometimes, yes, our board meetings require secrecy.  That's
because we're trying to outmaneuver partians of proprietary software.
You can't always lay out all your strategy and tactics.  Sorry if you
don't like that.  If it bothers you that much and you think there's an
alternative, you should join the board and work to change the
organization.  You might find from the inside that yes, we talk about
things we don't want to immediately disclose to everyone.

So .... all of this leads me to think that you perceive a problem
which will be solved via openness.  I'm pretty sure that openness
won't solve any problem (other than, trivially, a lack of
openness). I'd like to find out from you exactly what is the problem
you perceive?

 > And coming out of a troubled period an organization like OSI needs
 > to really show via that same openness that it is still reputable
 > and viable.

Ahhhh, y'see, I don't equate openness with reputation or viability.

If you want to find out why, try reading The Law, by Bastiat.  It's a
free download, and available as an audio book.

What "troubled period"?  You mean unfiled IRS forms?  That might
trouble the IRS and the California Department of State, but I don't
see why it should trouble anyone else.

 > The rest seems off topic and needlessly inciting. We don't need to debate
 > afghanistan on this list, as I'd imagine we all have strong feelings about
 > this.

I'm pointing out various applications of the idea of openness, and how
they don't automagically cause goodness.  The fact that you agree that
people will disagree says to me that I'm right: openness is no magic
bullet.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog